Friday, May 11, 2012

The Crisis in the South China Sea

The Scarborough Shoal standoff between the Philippines and China threatens to consume Southeast Asia.

For more than a month, the Scarborough Shoal, perhaps a good place to
fish but not much more, has been the site of a tense and increasingly
dangerous standoff between the Philippines and China. It has now begun
to snowball, with hints of economic retaliation from China and rallies
in Manila, the latest today in front of the Chinese Embassy, which drew
an estimated 1,000 people.

Beijing is suspending some tourism to the Philippines and stiffening
inspections on Philippine fruit such as bananas, of which China is the
single largest buyer. There are very real fears that this confrontation
could lead to war. Even if the initial belligerents are the Philippines
and China, such a conflict would easily spiral out of control and
consume the entire region, particularly if the Philippines calls in the
United States given its multilateral defense treaty.

If not for the gravity of the situation and the severity of the
consequences, it would seem almost comical that a war could be sparked
over a series of rocks and reefs of relative unimportance. In and of
itself the Scarborough Shoal is nothing. However, when taken into the
context of the South China Sea disputes, the outcome of this
confrontation—a potential flashpoint of these disputes— means
everything.

War and Peace

There exist two outcomes regarding the Scarborough Shoal and South China
Sea disputes: the first and perhaps most distressing would be a war
between China and the Philippines, which would as a consequence pull its
neighbors into an undesirable conflict, The second and most optimistic
scenario would be a diplomatic resolution among claimant states resolve
the disputes peacefully and permanently.

In the event of war, the Philippines would easily be outmatched by
China, economically and militarily. The United States could find itself
dragged into a conflict it has no desire to partake of. Depending on the
scope of a China-Philippine war, Southeast Asian nations might also
find themselves picking sides, drawn into an unnecessary fight. Losses
would undoubtedly be heavy on all sides, and the future economic
prosperity of Southeast Asia would suffer greatly. All of this ignores
the involvement of North Korea, an ally of China, and any potential
conflict on the Korean Peninsula as a result.

In the event of a war, however, China might end up suffering the most.
As with any military in the world, it requires fuel to fight—literally.
Without fuel for its trucks, tanks, and ships, China’s military and its
citizens at home would find it difficult to sustain a war. In this case,
China’s Achilles heel is the Strait of Malacca, the primary shipping
channel linking the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

If cut off, China would no longer have access to its energy supplies
from the Middle East, effectively neutralizing any hope of sustained
military operations. All that is required for this to occur is for the
US to deploy its warships to Singapore and the war would come to a
speedy end. Knowing this, there is some hope that China’s leaders would
refrain going to war, for the cost would certainly outweigh the benefit.

Diplomacy rather than force would be the ideal course of action to
resolve the standoff, and hopefully the South China Sea disputes as
well. Much like the Cuban Missile crisis of , one would hope that,
beyond the beating of war drums and threats of annihilation, the leaders
of the Philippines and China are working quietly and quickly to stop
this confrontation from going “hot.” That a diplomatic resolution would
succeed, however, is at present overly optimistic; and if history is any
indication, it seems there will be no shortage of talk with little in
the way of productive action taken.

Indonesia: potential mediator

If the South China Sea can be pacified, and if the parties involved are
incapable of resolving the disputes, there requires a third party
acceptable to all claimant states to step in. Indonesia presents itself
as the less objectionable mediator to bring competing claimants
together. Given the divergent interests of all parties involved, finding
a mediator, never mind a peaceful resolution, to the disputes will
prove difficult.

It is unlikely that the United States would play a role, if any, given
China’s insistence to not internationalize the issue, and its misgivings
of any American presence in the region. It is also therefore unlikely
that the United Nations will be able to assist for the same reasons. As
such, a third party may not be entirely objective and necessarily
impartial, and therefore not a “true” third party. Nevertheless, its
word must carry weight, and it must been seen to be impartial enough by
claimant states. Presently, Indonesia offers the best chance to play any
mediating role should the opportunity arise.

Indonesia is the largest country in Southeast Asia by economy, area, and
population. It is a member of the G-20 economies, a supporter of the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum, founding member of the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and former host country
of ASEAN summits. Indonesia understands the responsibilities of
leadership and has, through hosting various regional summits,
demonstrated its potential in international relations.

Most importantly, however, Indonesia has remained somewhat above the
fray in the South China Sea disputes. It has no stake in the Scarborough
Shoal confrontation and the hotly contested Spratly Islands disputes,
and so may be seen to be more welcoming and impartial. An economic
partner to China and the United States, Indonesia presents itself to be a
more palatable third party mediator than any other regional state.

Middle ground: Joint development

Should Indonesia receive and accept the job of mediator, Jakarta must
then seek an equally palatable solution to an otherwise unpalatable
situation. As claimant states in the South China Sea disputes have been
unwilling to cede ground (and the potential riches associated), perhaps
it is necessary that all parties involved abandon claims to sovereignty
and jointly explore resources in the region.

Such a proposal would not be readily met by all parties involved.
However, it may serve to diffuse hostilities long enough for all parties
to seek a more agreeable resolution. Nevertheless, Indonesia would be
ideally placed to suggest such a delicate (and perhaps) controversial
proposal given its distance from the matter at hand. Beyond the
respective economic exclusive zone of countries, joint development of
resources in contested waters could prove to be a win-win scenario for
all parties. A multilateral approach to the disputes would not only
clarify and diffuse the matter of sovereignty, but also help share in
the natural resources to be discovered.

The need for peace

However and whatever the outcome, what is certain is that war in the
South China Sea would benefit no one. There will be losers, and the
biggest loser will be Asia-Pacific as a whole. China, too, has much to
lose and little to gain, especially if a war should be started over the
Scarborough Shoal.

Beating the drums of war may serve to appease nationalistic elements,
but it will achieve little in the long term. If only to live and fight
another day, the Philippines and China would do well to avoid initiating
any kind of conflict. Consequences of such an action seem hardly
worthwhile over a series of small rocks and reefs of little to no
importance. Ultimately, at present, it seems this cost-benefit
calculation may prevent the outbreak of war; however, one cannot sit by
and wait for both sides to retreat. The desire to save face by both
sides will prevent such an outcome from taking place.

It is sometimes said that this century will belong to the Asia Pacific,
but it will not be if the region finds itself embroiled in a war.
Presently, Southeast Asian countries have experienced rapid economic
growth, if only because their previous state was less than prosperous.
Still, upward growth of any kind is always welcomed, but a war would
only serve to divert much needed resources away from nation-building
endeavors.

If there is to be a war then it should be fought on the field of
diplomacy instead of the field of battle, however hopeful and
unrealistic. The undeniable truth is that any war will yield short term
gains at the cost of long term suffering.